5918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1260, Revision 1, dated May 23, 2013. 

(3) For airplanes in Group 6, as identified 

in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1260, Revision 1, dated May 23, 

2013: Inspect, change, or repair the seat track 

link assembly, as applicable, using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(4) For airplanes in Group 5, as identified 

in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1260, Revision 1, dated May 23, 

2013: Modify the existing seat track link 

assembly fastener, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53– 

1260, Revision 1, dated May 23, 2013. 

(h) Retained Optional Modification of Seat 

Track Link Assembly, With No Changes 

This paragraph restates the provisions of 

paragraph (h) of AD 2013–24–13, 

Amendment 39–17687 (78 FR 72558, 

December 3, 2013), with no changes. In lieu 

of the replacement specified in paragraph 

(g)(2) of this AD, doing the optional 

modification of the seat track link assembly, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1260, Revision 1, 

dated May 23, 2013, is acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided the 

modification is done within the compliance 

time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(i) Retained Concurrent Actions, With New 

Concurrent Action for Group 5 Airplanes 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of AD 2013–24–13, Amendment 

39–17687 (78 FR 72558, December 3, 2013), 

with a corrected paragraph reference (i.e., 

‘‘(g)(3)’’ was changed to ‘‘(g)(4)’’), which 

results in a new concurrent action for Group 

5 airplanes. For airplanes in Groups 1, 2, 4, 

and 5, as identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1260, 

Revision 1, dated May 23, 2013: Before or 

concurrently with the accomplishment of the 

actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(4) 

of this AD, install a new seat track link 

assembly or modify the seat track link 

assembly, as applicable, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1120, Revision 1, 

dated May 13, 1993. 

(j) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, 

With No Changes 

This paragraph restates the credit 

provisions specified in paragraph (j) of AD 

2013–24–13, Amendment 39–17687 (78 FR 

72558, December 3, 2013), with no changes. 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD, if those actions were performed before 

January 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 

2013–24–13, Amendment 39–17687 (78 FR 

72558, December 3, 2013)), using Boeing 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1244, dated April 

17, 2003; Revision 1, dated May 29, 2003; 

Revision 2, dated March 15, 2007; or 

Revision 3, dated December 4, 2008; which 

are not incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraphs (g)(2) and 

(g)(4) of this AD, if those actions were 

performed before January 7, 2014 (the 

effective date of AD 2013–24–13, 

Amendment 39–17687 (78 FR 72558, 

December 3, 2013)), using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1260, 

dated May 7, 2007, which is not incorporated 

by reference in this AD. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by The 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sarah Piccola, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems 

Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917– 

6483; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

sarah.piccola@faa.gov. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(5) of this AD. 

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on January 7, 2014 (78 FR 

72558, December 3, 2013). 

(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1120, 

Revision 1, dated May 13, 1993. 

(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1244, 

Revision 5, dated July 27, 2011. 

(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 737–53–1260, Revision 1, dated May 

23, 2013. 

(4) For information identified in this AD, 

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. 

Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; 

fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(6) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

21, 2015. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02074 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2000–7360; Amdt. No. 

91–335] 

RIN 2120–AK59 

Removal of Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 87—Prohibition Against 

Certain Flights Within the Territory and 

Airspace of Ethiopia 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Immediately adopted final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action removes the 

prohibition against certain flights within 

the territory and airspace of Ethiopia 

contained in Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) No. 87 from the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

prohibition only applied to flight 

operations within the territory and 

airspace of Ethiopia north of 12 degrees 

north latitude conducted by United 

States (U.S.) air carriers or commercial 

operators; persons exercising the 

privileges of an airman certificate issued 

by the FAA, unless that person was 

engaged in the operation of a U.S.- 

registered aircraft for a foreign air 

carrier; and operators using an aircraft 

registered in the United States, except 

where the operator of such aircraft was 

a foreign air carrier. The FAA has now 

determined that the safety and security 

situation that prompted the above flight 

prohibition has significantly improved, 

and that it is safe for U.S. civil flights 

to be operated within the entire territory 

and airspace of Ethiopia, subject to the 

approval of and in accordance with the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5919 

1Paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 87 states: 

‘‘1. Applicability. This Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) No. 87 applies to all U.S. air 

carriers or commercial operators, all persons 

exercising the privileges of an airman certificate 

issued by the FAA unless that person is engaged in 

the operation of a U.S.-registered aircraft for a 

foreign air carrier, and all operators using aircraft 

registered in the United States except where the 

operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.’’ 

conditions established by the 

appropriate authorities of Ethiopia. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 4, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Will Gonzalez, Air 

Transportation Division, Flight 

Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone 202–267–8166; email 

will.gonzalez@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Robert Frenzel, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–7638; email robert.frenzel@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) 

§ 553(b)(3)(B) authorizes agencies to 

dispense with notice and comment 

procedures for rules when the agency 

for ‘‘good cause’’ finds that those 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ In this instance, the FAA finds 

that notice and public comment to this 

immediately adopted final rule, as well 

as any delay in the effective date of this 

rule, are unnecessary and contrary to 

the public interest. This is a relieving 

rule; with publication of this final rule, 

persons described in paragraph 1 of 

SFAR No. 87,1 who have been 

prohibited from flying within the 

territory and airspace of Ethiopia north 

of 12 degrees north latitude, will no 

longer be subject to that prohibition. 

The removal of this prohibition will 

allow such persons to operate anywhere 

in the territory and airspace of Ethiopia, 

subject to the approval of and in 

accordance with the conditions 

established by the appropriate 

authorities of Ethiopia. The FAA has 

determined that the safety and security 

situation which prompted the FAA to 

issue SFAR No. 87 has significantly 

improved, and that it is safe for flight 

operations by persons described in 

paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 87 to resume, 

subject to the approval of and in 

accordance with the conditions 

established by the appropriate 

authorities of Ethiopia. Delaying the 

effective date of this action, which the 

FAA expects to be non-controversial, 

would unnecessarily limit the activities 

and economic opportunities of persons 

described in paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 

87, as well as persons to whom they 

provide service. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA is responsible for the safety 

of flight in the United States and for the 

safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.- 

registered civil aircraft, and U.S.- 

certificated airmen throughout the 

world. The FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety is found in title 

49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f) 

and (g), describe the authority of the 

FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides 

that the Administrator shall consider in 

the public interest, among other matters, 

assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 

safety and security as the highest 

priorities in air commerce. Section 

40105(b)(1)(A) requires the 

Administrator to exercise his authority 

consistently with the obligations of the 

U.S. Government under international 

agreements. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, General requirements. Under 

that section, the FAA is charged broadly 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, 

among other things, regulations and 

minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce and national security. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority, because it removes the 

prohibition on flight operations in the 

territory and airspace of Ethiopia north 

of 12 degrees north latitude by persons 

described in paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 

87 on the basis of the changed safety 

and security situation, thereby allowing 

such persons to operate anywhere in the 

territory and airspace of Ethiopia, 

subject to the approval of and in 

accordance with the conditions 

established by the appropriate 

authorities of Ethiopia. 

I. Overview of Immediately Adopted 

Final Rule 

This action removes SFAR No. 87 

from the CFR. SFAR No. 87 prohibited 

flight operations within the territory and 

airspace of Ethiopia north of 12 degrees 

north latitude by the persons described 

in paragraph 1 of the rule. SFAR No. 87 

imposed no restrictions on operations in 

the territory and airspace of Ethiopia 

south of 12 degrees north latitude. The 

FAA has determined that the safety and 

security situation that prompted the 

FAA to issue SFAR No. 87 has 

significantly improved, and that it is 

safe for flights by persons described in 

paragraph 1 of the rule to resume, 

subject to the approval of and in 

accordance with the conditions 

established by the appropriate 

authorities of Ethiopia. The FAA finds 

this action necessary to allow persons 

described in paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 

87 to perform flight operations within 

the territory and airspace of Ethiopia 

north of 12 degrees north latitude. 

II. Background 

The FAA issued SFAR No. 87 on May 

12, 2000 (published May 16, 2000, at 65 

FR 31214), due to concerns regarding 

potential hazards to U.S. civil flight 

operations within the territory and 

airspace of Ethiopia north of 12 degrees 

north latitude. In 1998, a military 

conflict had erupted between Ethiopia 

and Eritrea over the exact demarcation 

of the border between the two countries. 

On April 30, 2000, peace talks between 

Ethiopia and Eritrea failed, and the 

border dispute again escalated to the 

point where open hostilities began. 

Armed forces of both countries, which 

included modern surface-to-air missile 

systems and interceptor aircraft capable 

of engaging aircraft at cruising altitudes, 

were engaged in hostilities near their 

common border. The FAA was 

concerned that civil aircraft operating in 

the region could be threatened by the 

conflict. 

Even in the event of a cease-fire, the 

FAA was concerned that the heightened 

state of readiness maintained by the 

military forces of Ethiopia posed an 

imminent threat to civil aircraft 

operations in the area. Prior to their May 

2000 mobilization, Ethiopian air defense 

forces had maintained an already high 

state of readiness during a prior ceasefire that threatened civil aircraft 

operating in the northern portion of 

Ethiopia. The August 29, 1999, downing 

by Ethiopian military forces of a U.S.- 

registered Learjet operating in the area, 

which they had mistaken for an Eritrean 

reconnaissance aircraft, was evidence of 

the seriousness of the threat. When it 

issued SFAR No. 87, the FAA observed 

that Ethiopia had issued temporary 

Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) closing 

certain routes in the Addis Ababa Flight 

Information Region. However, the FAA 

noted that neither the Ethiopian civil 

aviation authority nor the Ethiopian 

military had issued formal warnings by 

NOTAM, in the Ethiopian Aeronautical 

Information Publication (AIP), or in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

some other forum, of the potentially 

catastrophic consequences of flying on 

routes temporarily removed from 

service. Further, the Government of 

Ethiopia had rejected the FAA’s 

recommendation to establish a true ‘‘no 

fly’’ or ‘‘danger’’ zone. The FAA also 

could not assure that an adequate level 

of coordination existed between civil air 

traffic authorities and air defense 

commanders for civil aircraft overflight, 

including military rules of engagement, 

in the event an aircraft strayed from its 

assigned route of flight. Any lack of 

coordination could have put aircraft 

operating over northern Ethiopia at risk 

of being misidentified by military forces 

as a threat. Finally, there was no 

assurance that Ethiopia would follow 

international standards and 

recommended practices for the 

interception and identification of 

unidentified aircraft in its airspace. 

The operational environment for U.S. 

civil aviation in the area of Ethiopia to 

which SFAR No. 87 applied has 

changed significantly since May 2000, 

which is when the last major military 

conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea 

took place. The following month, the 

two countries signed a cessation of 

hostilities agreement. While there are 

continuing tensions which have led to 

periodic exchanges of military weapons 

fire across the Ethiopia-Eritrea border, 

there have been no further air defense 

engagements against aircraft. In 

addition, the Ethiopian government 

closed certain air routes that cross the 

border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, 

and restricted other routes from use by 

overflying international flights. Ethiopia 

also closed a portion of an air route 

running near the border within 

Ethiopian airspace. 

On September 20, 2013, the FAA 

received a petition for exemption from 

SFAR No. 87 from Mente, LLC (FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0839). The FAA 

requested additional information, and 

Mente submitted it on November 25, 

2013. Mente voluntarily submitted 

further information on May 20, 2014. 

The petition requested that the FAA 

allow Mente to operate flights within 

the territory and airspace of Ethiopia 

north of 12 degrees north latitude in 

support of the philanthropic activities of 

a U.S. charitable foundation. In part due 

to the FAA’s recognition of the changed 

operational environment for U.S. civil 

aviation in northern Ethiopia, on July 8, 

2014, the FAA granted Mente’s petition 

for exemption. 

On the basis of the above information, 

the FAA believes that the persons 

described in paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 

87 may now operate safely in the 

territory and airspace of Ethiopia north 

of 12 degrees north latitude, subject to 

the approval of and in accordance with 

the conditions established by the 

appropriate authorities of Ethiopia. By 

this final rule, SFAR No. 87 is removed 

from title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 91. 

III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354), as codified in 

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 

1979 (Pub. L. 96–39) (19 U.S.C. Chapter 

13), prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, the Trade Agreements Act 

requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4), requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

(DOT) 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

Flight operations in the territory and 

airspace of Ethiopia north of 12 degrees 

north latitude by persons described in 

paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 87 were 

prohibited because of the threat posed 

to U.S. civil aviation by the conflict 

between Ethiopia and Eritrea, as well as 

the heightened state of readiness 

maintained by the military forces of 

Ethiopia and the lack of adequate public 

warnings to civil aviation by the 

Government of Ethiopia. As described 

in the Background section of this final 

rule, the operational environment for 

U.S. civil aviation in Ethiopia north of 

12 degrees north latitude has changed 

significantly since May 2000, and the 

FAA believes that persons previously 

prohibited from operating in that area 

may now operate safely there, subject to 

the approval of and in accordance with 

the conditions established by the 

appropriate authorities of Ethiopia. The 

removal of SFAR No. 87 will eliminate 

the need to fly around the entire area of 

northern Ethiopia to which the rule 

applied and to avoid operations in that 

area even where such operations are 

permitted by the appropriate authorities 

of Ethiopia. Accordingly, this rule is 

cost relieving and, therefore, cost 

beneficial. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. The rule is also not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, will not create 

unnecessary obstacles to international 

trade and will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354, ‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objectives 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5921 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

§ 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 

head of the agency may so certify and 

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. The certification must include 

a statement providing the factual basis 

for this determination, and the 

reasoning should be clear. 

This rule is cost relieving because it 

allows more direct flights, which 

reduces fuel costs. Therefore, as 

provided in § 605(b), the head of the 

FAA certifies that this rulemaking will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

B. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13), as 

amended, prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to this Act, the establishment 

of standards is not considered an 

unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, so long 

as the standard has a legitimate 

domestic objective, such as the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that it will remove a prohibition on 

flight operations within the territory and 

airspace of Ethiopia north of 12 degrees 

north latitude. This action does not 

impose any new regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, the rule creates 

no obstacles to the foreign commerce of 

the United States and is in compliance 

with the Trade Agreements Act. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

requires that the FAA consider the 

impact of paperwork and other 

information collection burdens imposed 

on the public. The FAA has determined 

that there is no new requirement for 

information collection associated with 

this immediately adopted final rule. 

E. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (the ‘‘Chicago 

Convention’’), it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to this proposed 

regulation. 

F. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’) 

(Pub. L. 91–190, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 55) 

in the absence of extraordinary 

circumstances. The FAA has reviewed 

the removal of SFAR No. 87 and 

determined that this action is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental review according to FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 312(f). The FAA has 

examined possible extraordinary 

circumstances and determined that no 

such circumstances exist. After careful 

and thorough consideration of the 

proposed action, the FAA finds that the 

proposed Federal action does not 

require preparation of an EA or EIS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations, and FAA Order 

1050.1E. 

IV. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this 

immediately adopted final rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this immediately 

adopted final rule under Executive 

Order 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The agency has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

V. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104–121) (set forth as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

a note to 5 U.S.C. 601), as amended, 

requires the FAA to comply with small 

entity requests for information or advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within its jurisdiction. A 

small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section at the beginning of the preamble. 

To find out more about SBREFA on the 

Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/

regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_

act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, 

Ethiopia. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 is 

amended to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 87—[Removed] 

■ 2. Remove SFAR No. 87 from part 91. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 

40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), in 

Washington, DC, on January 27, 2015. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02193 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 156, and 157 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0194] 

RIN 1625–AB57 

MARPOL Annex I Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule the Coast 

Guard is updating our regulations to 

harmonize U.S. regulations with 

international conventions regarding oil 

pollution. We are amending the 

regulations covering Title 33: 

Navigation and Navigable Waters to 

align with recent amendments to Annex 

I of the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 

1978, which were adopted by the 

International Maritime Organization’s 

Marine Environment Protection 

Committee during its 52nd, 54th, 55th, 

and 59th sessions. This final rule also 

amends sections of the Vessel Response 

Plan regulations to include the Safety of 

Life at Sea Material Safety Data Sheets 

as an equivalent hazardous 

communications standard. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 5, 

2015. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on May 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2010–0194 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0194 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, 

and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LCDR William Nabach, Office of 

Operating and Environmental Standards 

(CG–OES–2), Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1386, email 

William.A.Nabach@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background 

A. MARPOL 73/78 

B. SOLAS 1974 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. STS Operations 

B. Oil Record Book 

C. SOLAS Material Safety Data Sheets 

D. Other Issues Raised in Comments 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COI Collection of Information 

COTP Captain of the Port 

FR Federal Register 

GHS Globally Harmonized System of 

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals 

HCS Hazard Communication Standard 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

MARPOL 73/78 International Convention 

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 

1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 

relating to that Convention 

MSC IMO Maritime Safety Committee 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets 

MEPC IMO Marine Environment Protection 

Committee 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine 

Forum 

OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

OSHA Occupation Safety and Health 

Administration 

POAC Person in Overall Advisory Control 

PSC Port state control 

§ Section symbol 

SDS Safety Data Sheets 

SOLAS 1974 International Convention for 

the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 

STBL Ship to be Lightered 

SS Service Ship 

STS Ship-to-Ship transfer 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Regulatory History 

On April 9, 2012, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) entitled MARPOL 

Annex I Amendments in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 21360). The Coast Guard 

also published a notice on July 26, 2012 

(77 FR 43741) extending the public 

comment period for an additional 60 

days so that the public had time to 

review the Regulatory Assessment that 

was added to the docket shortly after the 

NPRM was published. 

We received 12 comment letters with 

31 discrete comments on the proposed 

rule. No public meeting was requested 

and none was held. 

III. Background 

Protection of the marine environment 

and maritime safety are two of the 

primary missions of the Coast Guard. 

Specific Coast Guard regulations are 

designed to minimize the amount of 

pollution produced by ships at sea and 

to protect mariners. Many of the Coast 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES